Filed 9/7/21 P. v. Quiroz CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRENDA QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B311331

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA148872-01)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Lynn D. Olson, Judge. Affirmed. 

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________
2

Brenda Quiroz appeals from the judgment entered after she 

pleaded no contest and was found guilty of one count of 

attempted murder and one count of aggravated assault and 

admitted with respect to the charge of attempted murder that she 

had personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury on 

the victim. No arguable issues have been identified following 

review of the record by Quiroz’s appointed appellate counsel or 

our own independent review. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Quiroz was charged in an amended felony complaint filed 

July 18, 2019 with two counts of attempted willful, deliberate and 

premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), shooting 

at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246) and conspiracy to 

commit a felony (murder) (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)), with 

special allegations she had personally used a handgun when 

committing all four offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)), all 

the offenses had been committed for the benefit of a criminal 

street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)) and she had inflicted 

great bodily injury on one of the attempted murder victims (Pen. 

Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).

Quiroz entered into a negotiated plea agreement prior to 

her preliminary hearing. According to the description of the 

crime in the probation report, Quiroz had an argument with 

Julio R. several days before the shooting after Quiroz had flirted 

with Julio R.’s girlfriend, Maria P. On March 27, 2019 at 

approximately 1:00 a.m., as Julio R. parked his car in front of his 

house with Maria P. in the front passenger seat, Quiroz got out of 

a red truck and fired four or five rounds in their direction. 

Julio R. was struck in the right arm. 
3

Following her arrest Quiroz told police officers she was a 

member of the South Los 13 criminal street gang. Quiroz said 

she did not want to shoot Julio R. following their argument but 

members of her gang insisted that she do so or she would be 

disciplined. The driver of the red truck had given Quiroz a 

loaded firearm and instructed her to shoot at Julio R.’s vehicle. 

Quiroz claimed she had only fired in the air, not directly at either 

Julio R. or Maria P.

On the People’s motion the court ordered the complaint 

amended by interlineation to add a count of assault by means of 

force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, 

subd. (a)(4)). Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Quiroz 

pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder, one count of 

aggravated assault and admitted the firearm-use and great 

bodily injury enhancement allegations. As part of her plea 

agreement, Quiroz waived her right to appeal the disposition of 

her case, “based on either the state of facts or law.” The court 

sentenced Quiroz to an aggregate state prison term of 20 years. 

Quiroz filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Quiroz on appeal. After 

reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On 

July 13, 2021 counsel wrote Quiroz and advised her that counsel 

intended to file a no-issue brief and that Quiroz personally could

submit her own supplemental letter brief in which she identified 

any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. We have 

received no response.

We have reviewed the entire record in this case and are

satisfied appellate counsel for Quiroz has complied with counsel’s

responsibilities and there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. 
4

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 

441-442.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.